|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 11:45:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 12:46:27 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 16, 2011 8:51:48 GMT 1
"book that allows you to see the spin and the truth behind some of the arguments and counter arguments."
Pity you have not benefitted from it.
|
|
|
Post by poptech on Oct 18, 2013 3:35:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 18, 2013 8:39:47 GMT 1
Anyone who looks at raw data and draws inferences from it is a scientist, whatever he does for a living.
Anyone who massages data to fit a popular belief is a liar, especially if he does it for a living.
Take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Oct 18, 2013 18:57:42 GMT 1
Poptech, You're so right. These bl**dy amateurs parading about as if they know more than all the professional scientists. I get so angry when you get guys who haven't been to Uni or haven't got a degree in the field in which they espouse certain views. Take that guy Patrick Moore, what did he ever have to offer? OK, he knew a little bit about the moon that was of some use to NASA for the first moon landing, but honestly, what else? Then there's that amateur meteorologist, Stephen McIntyre. He's all bluff and bluster. OK he did find some minor errors in NASA's calcs on global warming, but, hey, they did apologise. We also have that bookbinder, what's his name? Ah yes, Faraday. Absolute plonker. Edison, another wanabee. The list of these amateur upstarts is endless. Thank goodness we know they're useless, otherwise we could be in real trouble. Get the drift Poptech? You, like many others, make the a fundamental error in assuming that amateurs in any field aren't as knowledgeable as the professionals. You'll find as you go through life that amateurs have a number of distinct advantages over professionals. Firstly, their livelihood doesn't rely on following funding streams. Secondly, they don't have any institutional bias and can therefore think "outside the box" without the project manager bringing them back into line. Finally, it's not their job it's their hobby and they do it because they want to not because they have to. P
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 18, 2013 19:33:53 GMT 1
And what about that upstart little patent examiner...Einstein or something. Relativity? Bollocks! No proper scientist would have even thought of it.
Becquerel. Bloody chemist straying outside his professional discipline.
Wright brothers. Bicycle mechanics! Hadn't they heard of Aristotle's proof that only birds can fly?
Fleming's job was to culture bacteria, not to let the gels go mouldy.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Oct 19, 2013 0:33:01 GMT 1
Nice one, Alan!
|
|
|
Post by poptech on Oct 19, 2013 10:32:14 GMT 1
Why then did Willis willfully allow misrepresentations of his credentials? Where is his integrity?
|
|
|
Post by principled on Oct 19, 2013 17:51:46 GMT 1
Poptech
I have no idea, but does that make what he says factually wrong?
Where is the integrity of those scientists who have allowed their results to be construed in such a way (Mann and his arch supporter Gore) that they caused absolute panic amongst world governments to the extent that in our government's panic to been seen to reduce CO2 emissions, the UK electorate and industry have been burdened with payng though the nose for energy, having a knife edge energy supply situation and a dire energy security for no appreciable reduction in emissions. The lack of integrity by Mann and his Muppet supporter Gore (to name just two of many) is going to cause my children and grandchildren to be paying for that for decades to come. Is Willis' supposed lack of integrity going to have the same effect? No.
Now, I'm an engineer not a scientist, but perhaps -for starters- you can enlighten me about the computer simulations and cloud cover. Is the griding system now accurate enough to determine the extent and the effect of the ever-changing cloud cover and whether those clouds have a positive or negative feedback on temperature. There are a few other questions I've got, but I'll leave those for later.
BTW, I DO accept that man has had an influence on climate change,but I'm NOT convinced that it's all down to anthropogenic CO2.
P
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 20, 2013 11:06:41 GMT 1
Why then did Willis willfully allow misrepresentations of his credentials? Where is his integrity? His integrity is on page 1, paragraph 1, of the autobiography at the top of his blog but then climate alarmists aren't interested in the publication or promulgation of obvious truths, are they?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 22, 2013 18:32:29 GMT 1
The ad hominem attack is all some types are capable of. Show them a graph and they run a mile. Willis has certainly done more to enlighten more people about climate matters than "poptech" and her ilk ever have.
|
|